Insurance Finals

7/24/2019 Insurance Finals

1/7

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 137172 June 15, 1999

UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner,

vs.

MASAGANA TELAMART, INC., respondent.

PARDO, J.:

The case is an appeal via certiorari

seein! to set aside the decision of the

"ourt of #ppeals, 1affir$in! %ith $odification that of the Re!ional Trial

"ourt, &ranch '(, Maati, orderin! petitioner to pa) respondent the su$ of

P*(,+',---.--, as the proceeds of the insurance covera!e of respondents

propert) ra/ed b) fire0 1'2 of the total a$ount due as attorne)s fees andP1',---.-- as liti!ation e3penses, and costs.

The facts are undisputed and $a) be related as follo%s4

On #pril *', *55*, petitioner issued five 6'7 insurance policies coverin!

respondents various propert) described therein a!ainst fire, for the period

fro$ Ma) 11, *55* to Ma) 11, *551.

In March *551, petitioner evaluated the policies and decided not to rene%

the$ upon e3piration of their ter$s on Ma) 11, *551. Petitioner advised

respondents broer, 8uelli! Insurance &roers, Inc. of its intention not to

rene% the policies.

On #pril +, *551, petitioner !ave %ritten notice to respondent of the non9rene%al of the policies at the address stated in the policies.

On :une *;, *551, fire ra/ed respondents propert) covered b) three of the

insurance policies petitioner issued.

On :ul) *;, *551, respondent presented to petitioners cashier at its head

office five 6'7 $ana!ers checs in the total a$ount of P11',


2/7

the "ourt renders =ud!$ent dis$issin! respondents co$plaint and

petitioners counterclai$s thereto filed %ith the Re!ional Trial "ourt, &ranch

'(, Maati "it), in "ivil "ase No. 5191-1;. ?ithout costs.1wphi1.nt

SO ORDARAD.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

AN N"

G.R. No. 137172 A#$%& 4, 2""1

UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner,vs.MASAGANA TELAMART, INC.,respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

DA'IDE, JR., C.J.(

In our decision of *' :une *555 in this case, %e reversed and set aside theassailed decision*of the "ourt of #ppeals, %hich affir$ed %ith $odificationthe =ud!$ent of the trial court 6a7 allo%in! Respondent to consi!n the su$of P11',R> B >(>, Record, p. *517that it %as re=ectin! Masa!anas clai$ on the follo%in! !rounds4

>a7 Said policies e3pired last Ma) 11, *551 and %ere not rene%edfor another ter$0

b7 Defendant had put plaintiff and its alle!ed broer on notice ofnon9rene%al earlier0 and

c7 The properties covered b) the said policies %ere burned in afire that too place last :une *;, *551, or before tender ofpre$iu$ pa)$ent.>

6Record, p. '7

@ence Masa!ana filed this case.

The "ourt of #ppeals disa!reed %ith Petitioners stand that Respondentstender of pa)$ent of the pre$iu$s on *; :ul) *551 did not result in therene%al of the policies, havin! been $ade be)ond the effective date ofrene%al as provided under Polic) "ondition No. 1+, %hich states4

1+. Renewal Clause. K Gnless the co$pan) at least fort) fiveda)s in advance of the end of the polic) period $ails or delivers tothe assured at the address sho%n in the polic) notice of itsintention not to rene% the polic) or to condition its rene%al uponreduction of li$its or eli$ination of covera!es, the assured shall

be entitled to rene% the polic) upon pa)$ent of the pre$iu$ dueon the effective date of rene%al.

&oth the "ourt of #ppeals and the trial court found that sufficient proof e3iststhat Respondent, %hich had procured insurance covera!e fro$ Petitionerfor a nu$ber of )ears, had been !ranted a +- to 5-9da) credit ter$ for therene%al of the policies. Such a practice had e3isted up to the ti$e theclai$s %ere filed. Thus4

Fire Insurance Polic) No. ;+'( coverin! Ma) 11, *55- to Ma)11, *55* %as issued on Ma) T9*>7. Fire Insurance Polic) No. ;++- forInsurance Ris "overa!e fro$ Ma) 11, *55- to Ma) 11, *55*%as issued b) G"P& on Ma) , *55- but pre$iu$ %as collectedb) G"P& onl) on :ul) *;, *55- or $ore than +- da)s later underO.R. No. +(< 6A3hs. >V> and >V9*>7. #nd so %ere as otherpolicies4 Fire Insurance Polic) No. ;+'< coverin! riss fro$ Ma)11, *55- to Ma) 11, *55* %as issued on Ma) L> and >L9*>7. Fire Insurance Polic) No.;+(( for insurance covera!e fro$ Ma) 11, *55- to Ma) 11,*55* %as issued on Ma) > and >9*>7. FireInsurance Polic) No. 15*1+ to cover insurance riss fro$ Ma) 11,*5(5 to Ma) 11, *55- %as issued on Ma) 11, *5(5 but pre$iu$therefor %as collected onl) on :ul) 1', *55-Hsic under O.R. No.-##> and >##9*>7. Fire Insurance Polic) No. @OBF91+-( coverin! riss fro$ :anuar) *1, *5(5 to :anuar) *1, *55-%as issued to Intratrade Phils. 6Masa!anas sister co$pan)7dated Dece$ber *-, *5(( but pre$iu$ therefor %as paid onl) onFebruar) *', *5(5 under O.R. No. ;(-""> and >""9*>7. Fire Insurance Polic) No. 15*1 and >DD9*>7. Fire

Insurance Polic) No. @OBF915;+1 %as issued on :une *', *5(5but pre$iu$ %as paid onl) on Februar) *;, *55- under O.R. No.;51;; for insurance covera!e fro$ Ma) 11, *5(5 to Ma) 11,*55- 6A3hs. >AA> and >AA9*>7. Fire Insurance Polic) No. 1+;-;%as issued on Nove$ber 11, *5(( but pre$iu$ therefor %ascollected onl) on March *', *5(5 under O.R. NO. ;('FF> and >FF9*>7.

Moreover, accordin! to the "ourt of #ppeals the follo%in! circu$stancesconstitute preponderant proof that no ti$el) notice of non9rene%al %as$ade b) Petitioner4

6*7 Defendant9appellant received the confir$ation 6A3hibit >**>,Record, p. ;'-7 fro$ Gltra$ar Reinsurance &roers that plaintiffsreinsurance facilit) had been confir$ed up to +**>. #pparentl), the notice ofnon9rene%al 6A3hibit > Record, p. ;1-7 %as sent not earlierthan said date, or %ithin ' da)s fro$ the e3pir) dates of thepolicies as provided under Polic) "ondition No. 1+0 617 Defendantinsurer unconditionall) accepted, and issued an official receipt for,the pre$iu$ pa)$ent on :ul) *H;, *551 %hich indicatesdefendants %illin!ness to assu$e the ris despite onl) a +


3/7

*551 %hen the fire occurred, since the pre$iu$s %ere paid %ithin the +-9 to5-9da) credit ter$.

Respondent lie%ise disa!rees %ith our rulin! that parties $a) neithera!ree e3pressl) or i$pliedl) on the e3tension of credit or ti$e to pa) thepre$iu$ nor consider a polic) bindin! before actual pa)$ent. It ur!es the"ourt to tae =udicial notice of the fact that despite the e3press provision ofSection


4/7

Section, since Respondent relied in !ood faith on such practice. Astoppelthen is the fifth e3ception to Section


5/7

correspondin! pre$iu$ pa)$ents, and petitioners failure to pa) said

pre$iu$s on or before the effective dates of said policies rendered the$

invalid. Petitioner thus concludes that there cannot be a perfected contract

of insurance upon $ere partial pa)$ent of the pre$iu$s because under

Sec.


6/7

I00ue( ?hether or not section


7/7

valid, effective and bindin!, Tuscan) $a) not be allo%ed to rene!e on itsobli!ation to pa) the balance of the pre$iu$ after the e3piration of the%hole ter$ of the third polic) 6#@9"PP951*-+'*7 in March *5('. Moreover,%here the ris is entire and the contract is indivisible, the insured is not

entitled to a refund of the pre$iu$s paid if the insurer %as e3posed to theris insured for an) period, ho%ever brief or $o$entar).

Insurance Finals

Documents

Transcript of Insurance Finals